People have crazy ideas about the number of points forwards should be recording.

How many points should a first-line forward put up? A top-30 forward in the game? Ask those questions and the odds are that you’ll hear ‘point-per-game’ from a lot of fans. It simply isn’t true.

Last season, there were nine 80+ point forwards in the entire NHL, meaning that just one team in three possessed a healthy, point-per-game forward. Now, before someone trots out the ‘yeah, but if you want to win you need a game-breaking offensive talent’ line, it’s also worthwhile to note that neither the Boston Bruins nor the San Jose Sharks possessed one of those players.

Fifty points was enough to get a player into the top-90 in scoring by NHL forwards – in other words, if a player recorded 50 points, he is definitively a first-line forward offensively. Fully half of those players scored between 50-60 points, so while a 50 point player is a below-average first-line scorer, he’s really only ten points back from being an average first-line scorer.

Thirty-four points was the cut-off for the top-180 in scoring for NHL forwards in 2010-11. Again, the meaning here is that the offensive range for a typical second-line player in the NHL is between 34 and 49 points.

Typically, even good teams don’t deviate from having six guys in top-six scoring range. Let’s look at the four conference finalists to illustrate this point:

What’s the point here? Simply that a guy who can score 40 points (assuming he’d score it anywhere) is going to be a top-six forward almost anywhere in the league.

This is an important thing to know, for a lot of reasons. Fans and columnists alike tend to overestimate the amount of high-end offensive players a team needs to win, and consequently undersell the players they have. For Flames fans, that might mean not selling Alex Tanguay short – those 69 points he recorded are a superb first-line number; he would have led the Stanley cup champions in scoring. For Oilers fans, this means snorting derisively when some columnist in Toronto refers to Ales Hemsky as a “second line winger.” For Leafs fans, it means giving players like Grabovski and Kulemin the credit they deserve.

A 60-point player is a first-liner almost anywhere in the NHL. A 35-point player is a second-liner almost anywhere in the NHL. Obviously there’s more to it than that – offense isn’t the only measuring stick around – but all else being equal, those are the plateaus. It’s been that way for years now.

Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer.
He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report.
He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.

Using only points is oversimplifying the analysis of players. A good first line player brings more than just points to the ice. Defensive abilities and physical play are also important, particularly for teams like Boston who are defense-first and who succeeded in the playoffs by physically wearing down their opponents.

Gagner has no defensive abilities. Gagner doesn't play a physical game. Gagner's faceoff skills are almost as bad as Cogliano's. In other words, Gagner didn't contribute anything more than his 42 points and his -17 +/- last season. We was also a big part of a PP that ranked 27th.

This team finished last place for a reason. We need to upgrade key positions on this team, and that means developing, signing or trading for a 2C that can match up against the top players in the league. When this team is ready to contend, Gagner will be trade bait to someone else looking to finish last place in the NHL.

The Oil are certainly building themselves into an offensive powerhouse up front. It would be interesting to see what the mean is for points from the blueline for NHL teams, where the tops teams stack up, and how much of a deficit do the Oilers rank in comparison.

I bet cogs breaks 40 points this season. I really think he needed a fresh start.(Not from him but some one willing to use him in new ways.) The attention payed to his D game was just starting to pay off. I still think he is a winger but given time who knows.

Using only points is oversimplifying the analysis of players. A good first line player brings more than just points to the ice. Defensive abilities and physical play are also important, particularly for teams like Boston who are defense-first and who succeeded in the playoffs by physically wearing down their opponents.

Gagner has no defensive abilities. Gagner doesn't play a physical game. Gagner's faceoff skills are almost as bad as Cogliano's. In other words, Gagner didn't contribute anything more than his 42 points and his -17 +/- last season. We was also a big part of a PP that ranked 27th.

This team finished last place for a reason. We need to upgrade key positions on this team, and that means developing, signing or trading for a 2C that can match up against the top players in the league. When this team is ready to contend, Gagner will be trade bait to someone else looking to finish last place in the NHL.

I bet cogs breaks 40 points this season. I really think he needed a fresh start.(Not from him but some one willing to use him in new ways.) The attention payed to his D game was just starting to pay off. I still think he is a winger but given time who knows.

Great breakdown Jonathan. This gives me a lot of hope for Horcoff over the next couple years. By this measure, he was still on pace to be roughly a 50 point player had he stayed healthy this season (a lower scoring first liner by Willis reckoning), and one who brings a lot more than points.

If he can stay healthy, he should be at least an average offensive, and above average defensive, second line centre for a few more years.

I like the message of this article, since between video games and scoring stats from 20 years ago I agree that too many people have unrealistic ideas of how many points players in a certain role should have especially on their own team.

If Gagner's progression continues this season and he puts up 55 points playing with other legitimate top 6 forwards while feeling more comfortable in his 3rd different system in his first 5 NHL years and he doesn't have to take virtually every major faceoff against the best faceoff men in the NHL this year so he approaches 50% on the dot, on paper that seems like a great season for a 22 year old to me.

I kinda think this article is a little damning for Omark since it's point, at least to me, is that you don't need offensive minded players all the way through your lineup. To me Omark seems much more likely to be trade bait to a bottom tier NHL team when the Oilers are ready to contend, assuming of course that Omark still has any value in 2-3 years.

Milan Lucic has played in Boston's top 6 for a while now and before this year when he broke 60pts with a 30/30 year he was scoring around that 35pt range. Teams seem willing to trade that higher range of offence if the player does bring other elements to his game. Gagner is a decent 2nd line center at this point and if he can take the next step and start to round out his game a bit and break 50pts I'd be happy. Really hope he starts the year with Smyth-Hemsky.

I actually stay clear away from HF boards. That ship doesn't seem to have an anchor and is drifting aimlessly at sea. Also, I'm not a big fan of Pierre Mcguire but Matt Stajan only cleared 50 pts once in his career and by Willis' reckoning IS a 3rd line center given his performance in Calgary. He was better in T.O. though for sure.

@speeds
One indication of a defensive team might be low shots-against totals. Another may be just where those shots are coming from. Surely it is easier to stop 30 shots from the outside than 15 shots from the slot and 2 breakaways. Other factors which would let a team be described as defensive might be the aggression or conservativeness of their breakout from their own zone, as well as their level of forecheck in the opposing zone. Does Boston fit this description? *shrug*

Interesting when you think back when in our hockey pools we had to split Gretz & Lemiux into goals & assists. Now you are lucky to get 100 points period from our top superstar players. I thought the new rules, geared for more offense, would create more 100 point players, especially with the extra 5 minute overtimes versus no OT back then. Some things just dont make sense. There is 60 minutes in a game & you pay forwards X amount of money & expect X amount of minutes & X expectation of point production. I guess if anything, it could be a stop check for GM's to get best value of their valuable cap dollars.

If a player has averaged .697 Points/Game over the last 6 years which equates to slightly over 57 pts in an 82 game schedule and for arguments sake we'll say this player is a center who is defensively responsible and also good on the dot, does this make him a legit 1st line center?

Based on Willis' excellent article above he would be a slightly below average 1st line center.

Vancouver had 4 first line forwards even using the blunt instrument of total points scored.

If you use PPG, where .609 (50 points in 82 games),
as your "first line" cutoff:

D. Sedin 1.27, H Sedin 1.14, .890, Samuelsson .667, Burrows .667,

So, Vancouver had 5 players who qualify as "first line" players and another, Mason Raymond, who would have qualified the season before but was injured last season.

Similarly, using .609 as the bar, Tampa Bay had six first line forwards and, as you mentioned, so did San Jose.

Then you come to the conclusion that: "What’s the point here? Simply that a guy who can score 40 points (assuming he’d score it anywhere) is going to be a top-six forward almost anywhere in the league."

Well, no, a guy who can score 40 will not be a top 6 forward almost anywhere.

Certainly not among the top teams where Boston had 9 forwards who eclipsed 40 points (pro rated), not Tampa Bay who had 6, San Jose who had 7 and Vancouver who had 6.

On those teams, 40 points won't get you a sniff in the top 6 unless you bring something else significant to the party.

While it may be true that there are many second line players in the 40 point range, that average is being dragged down by players employed by average and horrible teams.

Now, if you use 60 points (.73 PPG) as the bar you might get a little closer to defining a first line player.

I get approximately 75 players who scored .73PPG which seems about right when you consider some teams don't have three players who could be considered "first line".

You've stated above that "if a player recorded 50 points he is definitely a first line forward offensively" but the numbers show that is nowhere close to being true.

How many forwards in the league exceeded .61 PPG last season?

I'm too lazy to do all the math but the number is somewhere around 100 so your 50 point line in the sand means you're setting the bar too low.

I actually stay clear away from HF boards. That ship doesn't seem to have an anchor and is drifting aimlessly at sea. Also, I'm not a big fan of Pierre Mcguire but Matt Stajan only cleared 50 pts once in his career and by Willis' reckoning IS a 3rd line center given his performance in Calgary. He was better in T.O. though for sure.

@speeds
One indication of a defensive team might be low shots-against totals. Another may be just where those shots are coming from. Surely it is easier to stop 30 shots from the outside than 15 shots from the slot and 2 breakaways. Other factors which would let a team be described as defensive might be the aggression or conservativeness of their breakout from their own zone, as well as their level of forecheck in the opposing zone. Does Boston fit this description? *shrug*

I'm not entirely sure what to make of shot quality. Here are a couple articles regarding that topic:

If a player has averaged .697 Points/Game over the last 6 years which equates to slightly over 57 pts in an 82 game schedule and for arguments sake we'll say this player is a center who is defensively responsible and also good on the dot, does this make him a legit 1st line center?

Based on Willis' excellent article above he would be a slightly below average 1st line center.

Now what if this players name rhymed with scorecoff?

*Pokes hornet's nest and runs*

If we use Horcoff's rolling 5 year average, which flatters him tremendously...here's how NHL centres last season stack up.

Thanks for the links. I read them and now I am experiencing some sort of Cartesian mind-body duality with respect to shot quality.

As a goalie, I know there is such a thing as shot quality, because I get scored on via breakaways and wide open guys near the blue paint much easier than I do shots from a winger streaking down the side boards or a long shot from the point without traffic.

However, reading those articles tentatively convinces me that there really doesn't seem to be anything quantifiable that we could call shot quality at all.

At this point I am going with my gut, and suspecting that something is getting washed over in the math. I just don't yet know where.

EDIT: Here is a guy who believes in shot quality: http://www.sloansportsconference.com/research-papers/2011-2/presentation/digr/

I would recommend scrolling down and reading the paper instead of watching the video.

Using points per game assumes health - and injuries happen every year. That's why the point totals I'm using as plateaus hold up well going back over the last three seasons.

So, a player might have a 0.75 PPG average (~60 points) but only play 60 games in an average season. Is he a 60-point player or a 45-point player?

Bob Stauffer was on the radio yesterday and he mentioned Sam Gagner's potential to be a 55-point centre, which is actually what inspired this. In terms of points-per-game, Gagner already is a 55-point centre, but he's going to miss time along the way and that bumps the overall point totals down.

Absolutely it exists. Whether there's enough of a gap between NHL teams for it to matter much is another story; in some extreme cases (read: Lemaire) I think there's an argument to be made but for the most part it's wildly overstated.

In the CHL, that doesn't hold true - shot quality gaps do exist, and they can be quite wide, at least based on the goaltending looks I've taken.

Final point - spacial maps, like the one linked above by ~S~K~ are useful tools, but have to be taken with a grain of salt. I used them a bunch last year but then started comparing the recorded shot location against video... and what I found was that the shot recorders do a pretty bad job of actually noting down where goals come from, and a worse job of noting where shots come from. I don't trust the data anymore.

I don't think anyone is denying that shot quality exists, not in terms of comparing a one timer in the slot after a great pass on a 2on1 vs. a wrist shot from the point that a goalie sees the whole way. The first is a more high quality shot than the second 99 times out of a hundred.

But that is different from the "shot quality" referred to when talking about the collective difference in shots one team faces over the course of the season vs. another. That is, the idea that one team might allow 29 shots per game, but they keep their shots to the outside while another team might only allow 27 shots, but they allow more shots from the slot, breakaways, etc. Some argue that effect exists, and is strong, while some think it either doesn't exist or exists but in a small or negligible way.

Intuitively, it FEELS like it should/might well exist*, but does it in reality? Anything I've read seems to suggest that, at the team level (and even the player level), the ability to control the shot quality is more limited than fans tend to think. If anyone has some more links on the topic though, I'd appreciate them!

In terms of boxcars, it looks to me like a decent top 6 on the wings, decidedly below average at center. Samwise (if not traded) really needs to take a step forward; RNH's Desjardins NHLE is 11-27-38, so he literally can't grow up fast enough.

Using points per game assumes health - and injuries happen every year. That's why the point totals I'm using as plateaus hold up well going back over the last three seasons.

So, a player might have a 0.75 PPG average (~60 points) but only play 60 games in an average season. Is he a 60-point player or a 45-point player?

Bob Stauffer was on the radio yesterday and he mentioned Sam Gagner's potential to be a 55-point centre, which is actually what inspired this. In terms of points-per-game, Gagner already is a 55-point centre, but he's going to miss time along the way and that bumps the overall point totals down.

So, based on that line of thinking, Gagner has averaged 71 games per season over the last three years.

If he's a 55 point player as Stauffer says, that is a .67 PPG player based on an 82 game season.

However his injury history indicates he'll be a 48 point player at his peak.

While that would land him in your second line category quite handily, here's what some other "second line" centres accomplished last season.

I agree with DSF on almost all points. I think PPG is a more legitimate idea of what a top 6 forward's production will be. I'm pretty sure Pittsburg isn't building a team around 66 and 37 pt players in Crosby and Malkin, they are building around 100pt and 75pt players.

I also don't thing league average is something to strive for. A team that is "average" doesn't make the playoffs.

Looking at the top 10 teams in the league, which is where we should be aiming for at worst, the numbers are a lot different.

As I'm sure this discusssion came about because of talk about Gagner's production as our 2nd line center, here are the numbers for the 2nd line centers:
Kesler - 73,
Laich - 48,
M. Richards - 67,
Malkin - 70,
Pavelski - 73,
Filppula - 45,
Bergeron - 58,
Lecavalier - 68,
Koivu - 49,
Goc - 39.
The average is a shade under 60 points, with a couple very defensive teams bringing that number down. On top of that, most of these centers are defensive studs. As David pointed out, being able to contribute away from the puck is a big factor. I would rather have a 45pt 2nd line center that is defensively responsible and can PK than a 55pt center that is one dimensional. Scoring 50 points doesn't mean much if you are giving up more than you are scoring.

The average top ten 2nd line center scores 60 points and is defensively responsible. We should be shooting for our 2nd line center to be the same.

Dude, you're talking about cooking the books, and then you bring up PPG for defining how much a player contributes to his team over the course of a season? PPG doesn't help a lick when you're on IR.

By your logic, Martin Gerber would be starting in the NHL next year because he'll go 70-0.

There really is no other way to define value except PPG since injury is serendipitous.

If you want to throw it out the window, and use a three year average of raw point totals as JW suggested, then you would have to admit that Hemsky is a 43 point player since that is what he has averaged over the last three seasons.

Milan Lucic has played in Boston's top 6 for a while now and before this year when he broke 60pts with a 30/30 year he was scoring around that 35pt range. Teams seem willing to trade that higher range of offence if the player does bring other elements to his game. Gagner is a decent 2nd line center at this point and if he can take the next step and start to round out his game a bit and break 50pts I'd be happy. Really hope he starts the year with Smyth-Hemsky.

I never said that stats weren't important. I think they are. Kent and Robert at FN have proven that over and over again.

I realize there is much more to a player than the scoring numbers. P. Bergeron is a good example of this. Datsyuk had a "down year" two years ago and was dominant in virtually every other area of his game.

Omark was on pace for 43 had 9 points in the last 12 games lined up with omarra reddox then mps Gags with less toi then the other producers. Put him and Mps with a legit c and 2-line duty and he transform to a 60+ player!

Stats can be a never ending pit. PPG is a nice rough measure for forwards but I would include injury games in the total. The idea is to assess the contribution of a forward. If a player scores 2 a game when he plays but is injured most of the time (like Paul Kariya for example) his PPG next to his peers is much less than 2. Don't extrapolate. Count the bench time. All forwards have the same requirement to stay healthy.